wrote in message
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:10:38 -0800 (PST)
MIG wrote:
On 20 Nov, 13:32, wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:18:14 -0800 (PST)

MIG wrote:
Yes, I think he means Bob Crow, whose funding comes entirely from
the subscriptions of members he represents and to whom he is
democratically accountable, unlike ... ooh ... the bosses of Lloyds
who are being propped up by the taxpayer and over whom the taxpayer
has no control.

Oh so old Bob is democratically accountable to the taxpayer is he?
Taxpayers have control over his actions do they?

No, because he isn't funded by the taxpayer; he is funded by the
members of the RMT, as I said. Lloyds is funded by the taxpayer.

He might not be funded by them , but he's in control of a bunch of
militant workers who provide a service to them. When was the last you
couldn't get at your money because bank workers went on strike? And
there are quite a number of banks to choose from if you don't like
Lloyds. Is there another tube service thats RMT dickhead free the
public can use?

As you say, the RMT is one of the more militant unions, and perhaps its
members would remain just as militant even if the union were headed by
someone else. After all, they voted for Crow, and would presumably elect
someone else in his mould if he disappeared -- in effect, they're in
control, not the union leader. Even if the union didn't exist, they may
still call unofficial, wildcat strikes or disrupt the railway in other
ways (rather like the TOCs whose drivers suddenly won't work on
Sundays).